GeForce GTX TITAN X vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX TITAN X
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX TITAN X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX TITAN X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 60.4% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (12 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+60.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-60.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+200%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX TITAN X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $120 (vs $75), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 0.2% better value per dollar than the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+0.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX TITAN X and GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX TITAN X
The GeForce GTX TITAN X is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 17 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1075 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,621 points. Launch price was $999.
GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 12,621 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX TITAN X leads by 60.4%. The GeForce GTX TITAN X is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 6.691 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1075 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 12,621+60% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072+243% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.691 TFLOPS+124% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1075 MHz | 1665 MHz+55% |
| ROPs | 96+200% | 32 |
| TMUs | 192+243% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB+25% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX TITAN X comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX TITAN X offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 336 GB/s (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 162.5% advantage for the GeForce GTX TITAN X. Bus width: 384-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX TITAN X has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+200% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 336 GB/s+163% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+200% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FL 12_1) (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 2nd gen (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 2nd gen vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 2nd gen | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 2nd gen | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX TITAN X draws 250W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 600W (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 6-pin + 8-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 83°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 75W-70% |
| Recommended PSU | 600W | 300W-50% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin + 8-pin | None |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 83°C | 70°C-16% |
| Perf/Watt | 50.5 | 104.9+108% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX TITAN X launched at $999 MSRP and currently averages $120, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 37.5% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 105.2 (GeForce GTX TITAN X) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX TITAN X offers 0.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX TITAN X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $999 | $149-85% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $120 | $75-38% |
| Performance per Dollar | 105.2 | 104.9 |
| Codename | GM200 | TU117 |
| Release | March 17 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #209 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX TITAN X and GeForce GTX 1650
